Talk:Computer to plate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the preferred spelling CtP or CTP? This article mixes them. Madda 15:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone did a partial changeover... I'm happy with either, so will move all to CTP, as that seems to be the most recently preferred version. JackyR 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantage

I removed the paragraph on the disadvantage of not being able to correct a plate. If you fix the film, you STILL need to burn a new plate. Either way, you need to make a new plate. If somebody tries to argue that you can always go back to the film if the plate is damaged, then I argue that you can always go back to the electronic file used to make the plate. There's no disadvantage. MiracleMat 22:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if the mistake is not discovered at film stage. If the films are registered, photocopied and then proof-read, then mistakes get found before the plate is made.

You should note that CTP prices have become more realistic over time. Once a printers existing CTF equipment has reached the end of its life and has to be replaced, you should only consider the difference in cost between the 2 technologies.

[edit] POV opinion

I removed another paragraph that discussed POV about printing choices that is largly biased and actually WRONG. I work in the printing industry and COST is the biggest issue, not confidence. Computer to plate technology removes a costly step from the printign process - The savings are largly dependent on the volume of printing done by a printer and whether or not it's worthwhile to buy a costly platemaking system. I'll write a detailed paragraph soon on this subject, but for now I removed it. Articles should stick to FACT. MiracleMat 22:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, whereas I worked in the publishing industry and was talking about the decision being made by the publisher, not the printer! (You're right, I should have made this explicit.) And "confidence" means CONFIDENCE it's not going to COST us more! So when you've stopped getting steamed up and slagging me off, we could write a great article on this - you from the printer's point of view, me from the publisher's (tho I retired about three years ago, which is a long time in technology - although, again, you are to consider that what I was doing in London might not be what Kodansha are doing in Japan or Directory Publishers in Zimbabwe...) JackyR 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I read and reread the differences between the JackyR version and the MiracleMat version. I have to agree with MiracleMat (though, I should mention that I'm also employed on the printer/prepress end). As a publisher, you should be given the confidence that your job will look the way you made it, regardless of it being CTF or CTP. Those little errors you mention, that could easily be fixed on the film, SHOULDN'T FUCKING BE THERE in the first place (but if they're there one could always use the 'ol subtraction pen). Also, your argument about the film being the first time a customer see's their job imposed on a large format, is kinda bullshit. You should ALWAYS get a color corrected print (on the same paper you want to use) with every job, well before anything expensive (film, plates) are imaged.--drew1718 14:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I changed a lot, sorry

I rewrote quite a bit of this article. I would have discussed it first, but we NEED better press/pre-press info on the Wiki.

Anyway my shop is going through the transition from CTF to CTP right now, so I'm kinda all stoked (not necessarily informed, mind you) about the subject. The thing is that CTF vs. CTP is MUCH more a prepress/press thing than, artist or producer. A CTF workflow should be very similar to CTP as far as quality is concerned. It's just a matter of how much time and consumables did you use to get that quality. The advantage (with CTP) is, shorter workflow, therefor less errors in registration/repeatability. If that saves you enought money then CTP is the shit. Otherwise... well it is very expensive... and big (that Creo Trendsetter is at LEAST a couple of feet bigger than it needs to be). I tried to make it clear, but fear that my rewrite has too much jargon in it. HOWEVER, I'm going to guess that everyone who contributed to this article, are friends. There's not to many people working on the graphic artist/pre-press/press subjects (It's also the only subject "I'VE" looked at, that has been edited by people who have first hand knowledge of the subject). So let's work together, and get it done. --drew1718 08:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: PrePress (the company, and their machines) sucks. ECRM rocks (I have more than a few parts for our ECRM that are broken/missing, but I'll be damned if it still doesn't put out perfectly registered film)! We'll see about Creo... (to be updated in a month or two when we FINALLY get our Creo CTP machine :) )

Update: We're over 1000 plates into the Creo Trendsetter, and its, ah.. good. It's at best twice as fast as film. The quality is, however, immediately noticeable. Much better color and registration. However, Kodak/Creo's support leaves a lot to be desired. Also, the Prinergy system is overpriced and doesn't seem to me to be better than a Pitstop/Preps/Harlequin setup. The Prinergy system is easier to work with, but you give up a lot of control. Also to get the most out of it, you need Preps and Pitstop anyway. In conclusion I'd say Prinergy is great for well structured and controlled workflow (IE: internal jobs) but the Harlequin setup is better for dealing with the unpredictability of outside commercial work.--drew1718 06:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)